6 month probation.

Bevers_2

My husband and another girl started work for an international company back in May. They were both taken on as temps to begin with and then permanent staff from August on the understanding they had to fulfil a 6 month probationary period. In the past couple of weeks the company has stated that it will be losing part of the workforce through redundancy though they cannot specifically say where. Lo and behold, my husband has had the comment from his line manager that "things aren't working" and the girl has been told in her 3 month appraisal that there are quite a few negative issues regarding her work, one of which is to do with a medical condition the company knew about when she was taken on!! They do have until the end of January to "turn things around", somehow I don't think this will happen. My husband has entered employment in a totally different field to the one he was made redundant from and has had no formal training whatsoever as no-one has time. The department he works for is already short-staffed and needless to say he along with 95% of the department is now looking for another job.....his line manager may be the only one left shortly! Does anybody else smell a rat? Can there be any comeback to the company for not giving someone a fair crack of the whip? Do you think it is fair that a company can take someone on knowing they have a serious medical condition and then using it 6 months later to get rid of them? Thoughts please.

Conor_3

Not a chance. You have absolutely no rights in the first 12 months of employment. They can dismiss you without giving any reason or having to follow any disciplinary procedures for the first 12 months.

SomeBozo

Agree with Conor.

Life ain't fair. I would suggest your hubby get looking for jobs.

Do you think it is fair that a company can take someone on knowing they have a serious medical condition and then using it 6 months later to get rid of them? Thoughts please

Its all a none issue inside the year.

Bozo

girleight@

It's possible your husband's colleague has a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Zazen999

girleight@ wrote: »

It's possible your husband's colleague has a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act.

In what context?

girleight@

Well if her health problem could count as a disability and she is being treated less favourably than other employees as a result. You don't need to have been working for a certain amount of time to make a claim of discrimination. It's very hypothetical I know!

Zazen999

girleight@ wrote: »

Well if her health problem could count as a disability and she is being treated less favourably than other employees as a result. You don't need to have been working for a certain amount of time to make a claim of discrimination. It's very hypothetical I know!

Sorry, she had a medical problem - not a disability. Huge difference.

Fleago

The OP doesn't say it is a "health problem", they make mention of a serious medical condition. If a person with a serious medical condition meets the criteria laid down by the Disability Discrimination Act, then they will be afforded the protection in law laid down by the Act.


OP - this link may be of interest to you as it gives you information which might help you decide if the DDA may apply in your OH's colleague's case.

foxxymynx

Zazen999 wrote: »

Sorry, she had a medical problem - not a disability. Huge difference.

A disability is how a medical problem affects a person.

Zazen999

foxxymynx wrote: »

A disability is how a medical problem affects a person.

I'm guessing that the OP's colleague might know if she was disabled or not.

Fleago

Zazen999 wrote: »

I'm guessing that the OP's colleague might know if she was disabled or not.

Well, you are entitled to infer that as your opinion, Zazen, but to present the another suggestion, I have to say that in the course of my work, I have come across several cases where people do not consider themselves to be disabled, but actually are considered to be disabled within the scope of the law as laid down by the DDA. I have also come across people for whom the DDA applies, but they have no idea that it exists and that it affords them some protection in law.

I therefore think that it is entirely feasible that the person mentioned in the OP may not know whether or not they are disabled according to the DDA.